boondmanager-mcp-server

Supprimer un(e) ressource

boond_resources_delete

Destructive

Permanently delete a BoondManager resource by ID after verifying user rights. Returns confirmation or refusal, with update as the reversible alternative for deactivation.

Instructions

Supprime définitivement un(e) ressource de BoondManager.

Quand : uniquement sur demande explicite de l'utilisateur, et après avoir vérifié l'ID avec boond_resources_get. Plutôt que : boond_resources_update pour désactiver ou changer l'état d'un enregistrement sans le détruire — c'est presque toujours l'intention réelle.

boond_rights_get dit si l'utilisateur a ce droit sur l'enregistrement avant d'essayer (un 403 évité).
⚠️ Irréversible, sans corbeille côté API.
Si le client MCP annonce la capacité elicitation, une confirmation est demandée à l'utilisateur final et un refus annule l'appel (structuredContent.deleted: false + reason) ; sinon la suppression part directement.

Returns : { id, deleted, reason? } — vérifier deleted, qui vaut false en cas de refus utilisateur.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager (numérique)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`reason`	No	Présent quand la suppression n'a pas eu lieu (ex: refus utilisateur)
`deleted`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv2.12.2Aug 14, 2026

removedInput schema / $schema

Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

removedOutput schema / $schema

Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

Changed4 schema fields changedv2.7.0Jun 19, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / id / description

Previous value: -"Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager"New value: +"Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager (numérique)"

removedInput schema / properties / id / minLength
```
Removed value: -1
```
addedInput schema / properties / id / pattern
```
Added value: +"^\\d+$"
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "deleted": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "reason": {
+      "description": "Présent quand la suppression n'a pas eu lieu (ex: refus utilisateur)",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "id",
+    "deleted"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv2.1.0May 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already signal destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further by disclosing irreversibility, absence of API-side trash, the elicitation capability flow, and the structuredContent.deleted:false refusal behavior. This is meaningful context beyond the annotations and fully aligns with them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections ('Quand', 'Plutôt que', bullet points) and every sentence serves a purpose: guiding invocation, preventing misuse, disclosing side effects, and explaining the return contract. It is detailed without being bloated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive single-parameter tool, the description is fully complete: it defines when to call, what to check first, what to prefer instead, what happens on refusal or direct execution, and what the return shape means. No critical information an agent needs to invoke correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter id is already well documented as a numeric identifier. The description adds useful operational meaning by instructing the agent to verify the ID with boond_resources_get before calling, which goes beyond the schema's static description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Supprime définitivement un(e) ressource de BoondManager', making the destructive scope explicit. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming boond_resources_update as the alternative for non-destructive state changes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: only on explicit user request and after verifying the ID with boond_resources_get. It also gives the when-not-to-use alternative (boond_resources_update for deactivation) and recommends checking rights with boond_rights_get before attempting deletion.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server